School District #57 is looking at different ways of providing education to its students. Recently it has been focusing on the learning Commons philosophy, 21st century education and the integration of more technology. To better inform myself of these practices I have chosen three articles to summarize that relate to all three of these trends. The first article, What is Library 2.0? does a study to define the term Library 2.0 using a co-word analysis technique. The second article, personal Learning Environments in the Learning Commons, identifies the components of a personal learning environment and how they can help a student be successful within the learning commons practice. The final article defines project-based learning and outlines the process involved for students and the adults assisting them.
Holmberg, K., Huvila, I., Kronqvist-Berg, M., & Widen-Wuff, G. (2008). What is Library 2.0? Journal of Documentation, (64)4, 668-681.
Holmberg, Huvila, Kronqvist-Berg, & Widen-Wuff (2008) discuss their study to define the term Library 2.0 using a co-word analysis. The co-word analysis involved three main steps:
(1) The extraction of the key words from selected material.
(2) The creation of the co-occurrence matrix and drawing the network maps.
(3) Interpreting the network maps and the data they represent (Holmberg, et al., 2008, 672).
During their study the authors had 29 participants sort 37 terms related to libraries and technology. After the participants had organized and connected the words, the words were graphed into a network map. The authors used figures to visually show the word maps and identified the words as nodes. If a word was connected to another word it was linked with a line. The more times a word is connected to a word the stronger a connection is reflected on the figure. The results show that 'Interactivity' had the most connections to other words, with its strongest connection to 'users.' They also identified other strong connection words: participation, personalization, and user-created. Based on these correlations, interactivity, participation and user are "clearly the core of Library 2.0 according to the respondents" (Holmberg, et al., 2008, 674).
Holmberg, et al. (2008) continued by creating a network map. This analysis clustered key terms and defined four core cluster groups: Libraries and library services, Web and Web 2.0, Technology and tools, Social aspects: 'soft values." The authors added Users, Interactivity and Participations to make a list of "seven building-blocks of Library 2.0) (676).
This resulted in and identified the building blocks of the Library 2.0 model. All the blocks are inter-connected and Interactivity is at the center as it had connections with all the other blocks and "was considered the most important component of Library 2.0 by respondents." (Holmberg, et al., 2008, 676). By using the building blocks the authors "empirically define Library 2.0: Library 2.0 is a change in interaction between users and libraries in a new culture of participation catalyzed by social web technologies." (Holmberg, et al., 2008, 677).
In the discussion section the authors take the time to compare their results to other researchers. They note that most other researchers focus on the technology aspect in their definitions, but they do acknowledge the interactivity component.
The authors conclude that Library 2.0 has seven key components that all interact with each other and cannot be set aside. Their model reflects the fluidity of the 2.0 concepts with interactivity at its heart. They state, "The primary implication of the model is that it represents a consensual and empirical approach to define the notion Library 2.0." (Holmberg, et al., 2008, 678).
Koechlin, C. & Loertscher, D. V. (2011). Personal Learning Environments in the Learning Commons. Teacher Librarian, (39)2, 23-25.
Koechlin and Loertscher (2011) discuss the theory behind Learning Commons and developing a Personal Learning Environment (PLE). The authors begin by defining each word in Personal Learning Environment individually. They begin with Personal. Each individual must chose and tailor his or her learning tools to their interests and needs. If it is not about the individual the PLE will not be successful. The authors next define Learning. The learning must be "self-directed. The learner needs to control, test ideas, collaborate, create, make mistakes, and fix them and keep on learning" (Koechlin and Loertscher, 2011, 23). Environment is also defined as "creating a safe but empowering learning space (Koechlin and Loertscher, 2011, 23).
Koechlin and Loertscher (2011) break the PLE into its three components: the Portal (your information space), Personal Learning Network (who and how you learn best) and the Personal Portfolio (your published work to demonstrate learning). The goal of this process is to incorporate a reflective process and have the student progressively learning to learn.
The authors believe that the personal learning environment will empower the learner and who will become an expert in areas of personal interest. The learners develop the skills to construct their own meaning, while learning how to learn. "Within the portal and networked spaces of a PLE, students are encouraged to gather and organize links to resources, tools, friends, and experts that will help them expand all their interests both inside and outside of school." (Koechlin and Loertscher, 2011, 25).
Koechlin and Loertscher (2011) also identify the roles of the teacher librarian and the 'adult coaches' who will be present to help facilitate this format of learning. Their primary role is to be assessors of learning. The authors provide a visual breakdown for assessing: it includes three sub-heading: Doing, Learning to Learn and Knowing and Understanding. Each heading has points to assess such as "developing a plan, curating demonstrations of learning, building networks, collaborating, interconnectivity of ideas and value of self" (Koechlin and Loertscher, 2011, 25).
The teacher librarians become the "principal information coach in the school" (Koechlin and Loertscher, 2011, 25). They are responsible for watching the growth of their students in "personal expertise and collaborative intelligence" ((Koechlin and Loertscher, 2011, 25). The teacher librarians are also critical in developing the learning commons program. They must construct the program so that the personal learning environment "becomes foundational" (Koechlin and Loertscher, 2011, 25).
The authors conclude by providing internet links that demonstrate how some schools are already making this approach successful, for example: Preparation for Living in a Public World or Chat between Personal Learning Environment (PLE) and Learning Management System (LMS) which presents a short virtual video of a student explaining to an older generation teacher how he uses his personal learning environment.
Markham, T. (2011). Project Based Learning: A Bridge Just Far Enough. Teacher Librarian, (39)2, 38-42.
Markham (2011) begins by defining the differences between project based learning and using projects. Project based learning is the tool for learning in the classroom. It is always happening and has a specific question that facilitates the learning. Projects, however, are usually a 'culminating opportunity for students to finally demonstrate what they had learned during the year." (Markham, 2011, 38). Within project based learning, "Students learn knowledge and elements of the core curriculum, but also apply what they know to solve authentic problems and produce results that matter" (Markham, 2011, 38).
Markham continues by outlining how project based learning works by dividing the process into steps. The first three step include identifying a challenge, crafting the driving questions and building the assessment. From here the facilitator teaches collaboration and presentation skills. Students are then encouraged to get involved and have a “voice and choice into the project" Students help to design a schedule and outline their “benchmarks" (Markham, 2011, 39). Students are encouraged to work in teams, and to not think of themselves as working in groups. They are being coached to 'demonstrate commitment, purpose, and results..." (Markham, 2011, 39). Students and facilitators must also remember that this learning process is not linear. Students may have to revisit areas of discussion to facilitate their conclusions. Additionally, students are encouraged to focus on 'the practice and thinking time' (Markham, 2011, 40).
The role of the teacher librarian in this model is to encourage this method of learning. Markham (2011) notes that facilitators need to be aware of the gaps in this model. He states, "These are the gaps that need to be filled through training, support, and materials." (Markham, 2011, 40). Markham also notes that these gaps are things we are always facing in the realm of education.
Author concludes that, "PBL is a terrific method for teaching problem solving, core concepts, skills, and creative application so knowledge." (Markham, 2011, 41). Markham (2011) also notes, "Education is turning into a collective effort" (42). It will require students, teachers, teacher librarians and parents to create a collaborative framework. The goal is to help students go beyond the "A" and "fill in the canvas with their own thoughts, ideas, and experiences..." (Markham, 2011, 42).
No comments:
Post a Comment